Natalie
Taylor has appealed from the order of the Jefferson Circuit
Court dismissing her complaint seeking damages for
discrimination against her by the Middletown Fire Protection
District (MFPD). Because we hold that the circuit court
improperly dismissed the complaint, we reverse the order of
dismissal.

Taylor
began working for MFPD as a full-time, paid firefighter in
October 1996. She had been serving as a junior firefighter
and a volunteer firefighter with MFPD from 1991 until being
employed. Taylor was promoted over the years and eventually
was named Captain in February 2009. She became the President
of the local professional firefighter union in January 2014.
During her tenure with MFPD, she had only received one
written warning prior to November 2014, and that was for
failure to properly use the chain of command within MFPD. The
circumstances giving rise to the claimed discrimination
occurred on November 20, 2014, when Taylor attended an
officer's training session that was conducted by Chief
Michael Morgan.[1] The participants were asked to share their
opinions about different matters, and Taylor did so.
Believing that she was in a safe environment, she stated her
opinions that the MFPD employees were not being used to the
best of their abilities and that there was a disconnect
between the command team and the firefighters. After the
training, two members of the MFPD command, Assistant Chief
Andy Longstreet and Major Bradford Michel, called her in for
a meeting, after which Taylor agreed to work with Assistant
Chief Longstreet to prepare a short presentation for the next
officers' meeting. She believed the matter was resolved.

But on
December 3, 2014, the day before the officers' meeting,
Taylor was suspended and charged with misconduct. She was
charged with making "disparaging, disrespectful and
inappropriate remarks about her subordinates, peers, and
superior officers of the District" in the presence of
the MFPD staff, a violation of MFPD Policies 306.01.III.B and
306.01.V.A.3.c. A second charge indicated that she made the
inappropriate remarks after she had previously been
instructed by Major Michel on the proper conduct for officers
regarding professional communications and the chain of
command, a violation of Policy 307.10.III.F. A third charge
indicated that she publicly criticized instructions or orders
she had received in violation of Policy 307.10.III.G. As a
result of the charges, Taylor was immediately locked out of
her work computer and e-mail. For her misconduct, Taylor was
offered the options to self-demote from Captain to
firefighter, to resign, or to proceed with a hearing. Taylor
chose to proceed with a hearing.

Taylor
remained suspended from her duties as Captain from December
3, 2014, through March 21, 2015, and without pay from
February 5 through March 18, 2015. A disciplinary hearing was
held on December 17, 2014, January 16, 2015, February 5,
2015, and March 18, 2015. The third charge had been dismissed
previously by agreement, and the MFPD Board of Trustees found
charges 1 and 2 to be unsubstantiated. The Board ultimately
found in Taylor's favor, and she was awarded back pay.

Taylor
believed that MFPD Chief Jeff Riddle did not agree with the
opinions she expressed in the training session and that he
initiated the disciplinary proceedings against her. She named
three other MFPD captains she claimed were not disciplined to
the extent she was in support of her disparate treatment
claim. After her return to work, Taylor claimed to have been
subjected to random and unnecessary reassignments between
three stations and instructed to do quality checks on
twenty-nine fire runs when she had only been involved with
three of those runs. In April 2015, Taylor received an
evaluation with negative comments when she had always
received favorable evaluation ratings in the past.

In lieu
of an answer, MFPD filed a motion to dismiss Taylor's
complaint, arguing that she had not suffered an adverse
employment action and had failed to identify any similarly
situated individuals and, therefore, failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. Taylor objected to the
motion. She described the adverse employment actions she
claimed she experienced as a result of having disciplinary
charges brought against her and being suspended, including
being locked out of her work e-mail and disconnected from her
department, denied the opportunity to serve on the hiring
committee, denied training opportunities, and denied the
opportunity to take advantage of educational reimbursement
through MFPD. Her eligibility to attain the rank of Major was
also delayed. After her suspension, Taylor stated she was
directed to quality check twenty-nine fire runs and was
subjected to a negative performance review in April 2015,
much of which she claimed was related to the November
training meeting. She went on to address other similarly
situated captains who were not subjected to the same level of
discipline as she was. As a result, Taylor argued that she
had established her claim for gender discrimination pursuant
to KRS Chapter 344 and that MFPD's motion to dismiss
should be denied. By separate filing, Taylor moved the court
to schedule a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

On
December 21, 2015, Taylor moved the court for leave to amend
her complaint to provide more adverse employment actions that
were taken against her, as she discussed in her response to
MFPD's motion to dismiss. The circuit court granted her
motion in January 2016.

On June
22, 2016, following a hearing that was not included in the
certified record, the circuit court entered an order granting
MFPD's motion to dismiss. The court found that Taylor had
not been subjected to adverse employment actions, recognizing
that she had not been demoted, given different job
responsibilities, or a reduction in pay or benefits when she
returned from her suspension. In addition, the performance
review included areas of improvement that predated her
suspension and could thus not be considered an adverse
employment action. The court went on to hold that the three
individuals Taylor identified ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.